But what if North has (b)? Over 1♠-2♣-2♥-3♦, she is stuck. If she rebids 3♥ that shows 5, 3♠ would show 6 (or a great 5), and 4♣ would show at least a doubleton. This might seem a little contrived. For instance often 3N will play well despite a 5-3 heart fit (or 6-2 spade fit), but in general it is better to play in the 8 card major fit when one hand has a singleton.

Problem 2. Responder must force to game somehow without stoppers in the side suits.

North: AJxxxx x Qx KQxx
South: x AQJ AKJxxx xxx
1♠ 2♦
2♠ ?

Here, North rebids 2♠, waiting, and South is stuck. 2NT and 3♦ are nonforcing, but she has a GF hand. 3♣ would not be a problem on length (we all lie about minor suit length sometimes) but it is not descriptive at all (North here could raise clubs). 3♥ is correct in terms of stoppers, but what if North had:

AJxxxx xxxx Q AK

North raises 3♥ to game and South is stuck when 3N is clearly best. So this is an impossible problem.

North opens 1♠, and South responds 2♦, having too much for a non-forcing 1N response. North has an easy 3♦ raise. Now what should responder do? Is North maximum or minimum? Does North have 3 or 4 card support? Does North have a ♥ stopper or 6 spades? Another impossible problem.

Problem 4. Openerís 2NT rebid is impossible to read.

North: AJTxx Kxx xx AQx
South: xx Qxx AJ9xx KJx

North opens 1♠ and South responds 2♦. North has a classic NT rebid Ė all suits stopped, tolerance for partner, only 5 in the opened suit. Does South continue to game or not? North may have 12 HCP or may have 14 (or a bad 15 if played that way). Or should North have anticipated this problem and rebid 3NT. What should opener have rebid with 17-19 balanced then? This is a tricky subject, and SAYC leaves these questions unanswered.

Problem 5. Showing stoppers and finding the best fit is a complete guess.

North: AQJxxxx Kx A xxx
South: x Axxx KQxxx AQx

North opens 1♠ and South responds 2♦ and North rebids 2♠. South, to cater to openerís 6♠-4♥ rebids 3♥. North, with no ♣ stopper rebids 3♠. South now is not sure if North is showing a 7+ card suit (or great 6) or just denying a club stopper, so South must guess whether to raise to 4♠ or bid 3N, not to mention whether slam is in the offing or not. If South rebids 3N, then North passes 3N and finds partner with just one club stopper, or
bids 4♠ and finds partner with the actual hand (a perfecto for declaring Ė protecting the clubs from the lead).

Problem 6. Showing slam interest is near-impossible.

North: AJxxx KQxxx Kx Q
South: Kx AJxx AQJxx Jx

The auction begins 1♠-2♦-2♥, and South now cannot bid 3♥ (nonforcing) but is a bit too good for 4♥. What if North has 16 HCP? Basically both sides are about 12-16 HCP and there is no way for either side to do anything cooperative. Maybe South could bid 3♣ (GF) and then 4♥, but without prior agreement, itís anybodyís guess.

North: AJxxx xxx AQJx K
South: Kx Ax Kxxxxxx Qx

Here it is not responder but opener that has extra values, but no intelligent way to show it after 1♠-2♦. To bid 3♦ is to risk partner passing, and to bid 4♣ is not even well-defined, but it might even be a 5-5 ♠-♣ hand. What can North do? South is not going to take any steps towards slam.

The result of all these little problems is one of three solutions:

1. Practice, discuss, and develop arbitrary agreements (and thus not Standard American) to minimize the number of guesses. (e.g. 1♠-2♣-3♣ = game forcing by agreement).
2. Bid quickly to avoid giving unauthorized information to partner, but the decision tends to be hasty and without full due consideration.
3. Bid slowly, choosing the least harmful guess, at the cost of giving lots of unauthorized information to partner.

I have seen #1 in use to good effect Ė a bad system played well is better than a good system played badly. I donít think I would be writing this article if I thought that was an acceptable solution.

#2 is the best solution on-the-fly with a new partnership.

#3 unfortunately is the norm at the club level, whether they know it or not. But it is not their fault. The system is to blame!

Some of these problems apply to precision as well, but it's a lot better at least.

But what if North has (b)? Over 1♠-2♣-2♥-3♦, she is stuck. If she rebids 3♥ that shows 5, 3♠ would show 6 (or a great 5), and 4♣ would show at least a doubleton. This might seem a little contrived. For instance often 3N will play well despite a 5-3 heart fit (or 6-2 spade fit), but in general it is better to play in the 8 card major fit when one hand has a singleton.

Problem 2. Responder must force to game somehow without stoppers in the side suits.

North: AJxxxx x Qx KQxx
South: x AQJ AKJxxx xxx
1♠ 2♦
2♠ ?

Here, North rebids 2♠, waiting, and South is stuck. 2NT and 3♦ are nonforcing, but she has a GF hand. 3♣ would not be a problem on length (we all lie about minor suit length sometimes) but it is not descriptive at all (North here could raise clubs). 3♥ is correct in terms of stoppers, but what if North had:

AJxxxx xxxx Q AK

North raises 3♥ to game and South is stuck when 3N is clearly best. So this is an impossible problem.

North opens 1♠, and South responds 2♦, having too much for a non-forcing 1N response. North has an easy 3♦ raise. Now what should responder do? Is North maximum or minimum? Does North have 3 or 4 card support? Does North have a ♥ stopper or 6 spades? Another impossible problem.

Problem 4. Opener's 2NT rebid is impossible to read.

North: AJTxx Kxx xx AQx
South: xx Qxx AJ9xx KJx

North opens 1♠ and South responds 2♦. North has a classic NT rebid – all suits stopped, tolerance for partner, only 5 in the opened suit. Does South continue to game or not? North may have 12 HCP or may have 14 (or a bad 15 if played that way). Or should North have anticipated this problem and rebid 3NT. What should opener have rebid with 17-19 balanced then? This is a tricky subject, and SAYC leaves these questions unanswered.

Problem 5. Showing stoppers and finding the best fit is a complete guess.

North: AQJxxxx Kx A xxx
South: x Axxx KQxxx AQx

North opens 1♠ and South responds 2♦ and North rebids 2♠. South, to cater to opener's 6♠-4♥ rebids 3♥. North, with no ♣ stopper rebids 3♠. South now is not sure if North is showing a 7+ card suit (or great 6) or just denying a club stopper, so South must guess whether to raise to 4♠ or bid 3N, not to mention whether slam is in the offing or not. If South rebids 3N, then North passes 3N and finds partner with just one club stopper, or
bids 4♠ and finds partner with the actual hand (a perfecto for declaring – protecting the clubs from the lead).

Problem 6. Showing slam interest is near-impossible.

North: AJxxx KQxxx Kx Q
South: Kx AJxx AQJxx Jx

The auction begins 1♠-2♦-2♥, and South now cannot bid 3♥ (nonforcing) but is a bit too good for 4♥. What if North has 16 HCP? Basically both sides are about 12-16 HCP and there is no way for either side to do anything cooperative. Maybe South could bid 3♣ (GF) and then 4♥, but without prior agreement, it's anybody's guess.

North: AJxxx xxx AQJx K
South: Kx Ax Kxxxxxx Qx

Here it is not responder but opener that has extra values, but no intelligent way to show it after 1♠-2♦. To bid 3♦ is to risk partner passing, and to bid 4♣ is not even well-defined, but it might even be a 5-5 ♠-♣ hand. What can North do? South is not going to take any steps towards slam.

The result of all these little problems is one of three solutions:

1. Practice, discuss, and develop arbitrary agreements (and thus not Standard American) to minimize the number of guesses. (e.g. 1♠-2♣-3♣ = game forcing by agreement).
2. Bid quickly to avoid giving unauthorized information to partner, but the decision tends to be hasty and without full due consideration.
3. Bid slowly, choosing the least harmful guess, at the cost of giving lots of unauthorized information to partner.

I have seen #1 in use to good effect – a bad system played well is better than a good system played badly. I don't think I would be writing this article if I thought that was an acceptable solution.

#2 is the best solution on-the-fly with a new partnership.

#3 unfortunately is the norm at the club level, whether they know it or not. But it is not their fault. The system is to blame!

Some of these problems apply to precision as well, but it's a lot better at least.